dha na njay chandrachud. did he successfully protect the court from political pressure? thank you. when you said, as you left the supreme court last year.

what is your own answer to that question? which i would deliver, because a chiefjustice is first and foremost a judge. and then second, you're also the administrative head of the indian judiciary. realise the full transformative potential of i mean, you've alluded in that answer to the enormous responsibility you had. i mean, i can't think of a job in the world that has more absolutely. and also in terms just of the diversity

of cases that we handle. we are also the final court of appeal. it is interesting to me that you took the decision just does not happen. but i just wonder whether that's something of a gimmick. of india before you.

it's dynastic. well, no, it isn't. now, what happens is this — if you look at the lowest into our states are women. there are states in which the recruitment of women goes up to 60 or 70%. now, what happens really is this — now, ijoined the bench in 2000, so i'd spent 25 years before i retired. you find an increasing amount of women coming into

it doesn't work like that. and that was why i spent three years at harvard law school doing my studies. time after he retired. and judges... as well as the districtjudges who get promoted. most of them are first—time entrants so quite contrary to what you said, it's not

let me quote to you an editorial in the new york times still chiefjustice. growing political pressure? towards a one—party state.

they are ruling those states. politics and the judiciary.

you're looking at. of a trial court in india, but thatjudgment of in parliament. sure, it's a suspension of the decision, but the defamation cases — and there are at least and it's in a sense a symptom of something much wider — that civil society activists, journalists, opposition politicians are all finding themselves in courtrooms. of narendra modi's party. again, i'll give you statistics because nothing as correct as statistics.

i'm not going to name the political leaders the rule of law, does govern. a legal process which is to be followed. as to whether a court correctly decided a particular case or didn't correctly decide a particular case. has been at the vanguard of personal liberty. we have so much of the faith of our people.

let's start with the abrogation of article 370, which was the part of the constitution which guaranteed the special status, the autonomy, of the state of jammu and kashmir. now, that had been put in place at the very inception of the modern state of india. of the modern state of india. you agreed that you agreed that the government had a right the government had a right to abrogate article 370. many legal scholars were deeply disappointed with your decision because they felt that you had failed to uphold the constitution. the constitution. that article 370 explain to me why you took the decision you did. well, stephen, at the outset, well, stephen, at the outset, i must tell you that since i was the author of one i must tell you that of the judgments in the case, a judge, by the very nature of the profession, has some restraints on either defending has some restraints on either defending or critiquing theirjudgments. or critiquing theirjudgments. but i'll briefly answer your question, notwithstanding my caveat, which is this — my caveat, which is this — that article 370

of the constitution, when it was introduced into the constitution at the birth of the constitution, was part of a chapter which is titled transitional arrangements.

a transitional provision... a transitional provision, that's fine. effectively setting a timeline for that... you didn't set a timeline. we did. yes, we did. elections took place early in october, and a democratically elected government is in place injammu and kashmir. all right. i'll come to that in a moment.

because we've got a lot to get through and all of this is complicated. for example, from... "the supreme court's decision was an act of capitulation. a naked power grab by the federal government." that's the perception of one lawyer. let me talk. let me quote you dushyant dave, for example, former president elections, you have

a democratically elected so this itself is a clear indicator that democracy has succeeded injammu and kashmir. jammu and kashmir. the union government. we asked them, "would you like us to issue a direction or are you going to give an undertaking?" the solicitor general he sought an adjournment. sought time. he sought an adjournment. he consulted the government at the highest level and has made an unconditional statement before the court that the status of jammu and kashmir as a state would be restored as soon as possible. restored as soon as possible. yeah, with no timeline. yeah, with no timeline. that was my point — that was my point — no timeline. but let's move on to a couple no timeline. of other important issues. but you see, therefore, but you see, therefore,

that the supreme court, that the supreme court, in that sense, we have ensured democratic accountability. accountability. we have ensured that a people's we have ensured that a people's government is in place. government is in place. and i therefore think, you know, the criticism that we didn't apply that we didn't apply our constitutional mandate our constitutional mandate is not correct. is not correct. maybe there are two people on one end of the spectrum who have this view. you will have other people who have another different view. a different issue, but also very important — the 2019 citizenship amendment act, which the supreme court chose not to intervene over or to change or modify or demand that the government rethink. to many legal observers, all citizens are treated equally, irrespective of their religion. because this particular it challenges a fundamental citizenship law gives muslims do not enjoy the same privileges. how is that squaring

with the principles there is a presumption of the constitutionality of a statute. if this were to take place in the uk, the court would have no power to invalidate it. in india, we have the power to invalidate legislation which courts across democratically... and you've chosen, in this case, not to deploy it. no, the case is still pending. now... that's my point. this is, for muslim people in india, of the utmost importance. stephen... and yet you tell me, "well, we'll consider it when the time is right." no.

stephen, we have important... i mean, i—i disposed of about... i wrote about 62 judgments for the constitution bench through my tenure. bench through my tenure. now, the fact of the matter is this — we had constitutional cases which were pending for 20 years, dealing with critical issues of federalism — critical issues of federalism — which we have dealt with — giving more power which we have dealt with — we dealt with, for instance, to the states. you talked about muslims. we dealt with the issue as to whether the aligarh muslim university should muslim university should have minority status. have minority status. we reversed a judgment which was written by the supreme court in 1968. the supreme court in 1968. now the question is this... if you do that, you would be criticised that, when you have old cases which are pending." by my court, my successor.

so you didn't pray? see, the muslims again... act where you were saying, in essence, that you sought in a court of law. what i said was this — i was asked specifically. 0ur constitution does not require you to be an atheist, but what my faith teaches me is the universality of religion and irrespective of who comes to my court — and i dare say you dispense equal and even—handed justice.

ability and skill. it's also about perception and we work in areas of conflict. we work in areas of intense conflict. a sense of calm, of equanimity? for calm and equanimity. even—handed to every religious group and community in the country. some said, and i'm quoting here

from...those who criticised is close to the pm." of constitutional office. i think our system is mature enough to understand that constitutional functionaries, have nothing to do with the way give me a moment. before this particular meeting, we deliverjudgments through anonymous electoral bonds. after that, we have delivered numerous judgments which have so you think you have effectively stood up i'm sure. and not me, just individually. see, the court is not just one chiefjustice.

it comprises of a collectivity of people. even the cases which i decided, you discuss the outcomes with your colleagues on the bench. and i do believe that our court has stood_un.—. and i'd like to again say — the role of the judiciary in a democratic society is not the role of and to defend...the constitution. with the rule of law. tensions in this country and that came with gender issues in this country. of indian democracy. are you sure that confidence

isn't complacency? has emerged as a mature democracy. of elections across the states only go to remind you that you know, when the constitution was born, we were one to every citizen irrespective of gender, property, class or education. and at that point of time, a fear was expressed. were indians ready for democracy? 75 years of our history have only reminded us that indian democracy is sound second, and that's very important, i believe the way

economic growth can take place in stable political conditions in a democracy. and the onward path of india as an economic powerhouse by a vibrant electorate. and ultimately the constitution. ultimately, a constitution and a constitution which is enforced by independent courts governed by the rule of law. and there we must leave it. but, justice dhananjaya chandrachud, thank you very much forjoining me on hardtalk. thank you very much, stephen.

hello. cloud, mist, rain and drizzle. average — just1 in braemar. 2s and 35 were fairly commonplace, actually. and as well as that and the bitter air we had, of scotland and eastern areas of england, adding now, at the moment, ourjet stream is running well to the north of its typical position and these ridges area of high pressure, which is feeding in these it's going to be like that pretty much all week. and scotland — above around

300—400m elevation. rain that you'll see. but that's how we start the day on tuesday — extensive cloud, rain and drizzle around, quite a lot of mist too. there will be little overall change in the weather picture still got those bitter easterly winds. will be hard to find. see temperatures of around 2 or 3 celsius. of cloud into wednesday. with some drizzle and mist, perhaps a few more breaks

by the end of the week, we do have a weather front that's trying to push its way in, but it's running and it will weaken as we go through friday. a few holes into the cloud. that's the latest. bye— bye.

this is bbc news. live from washington. this is bbc news. president trump says israel should cancel the gaza ceasefire and "let all hell break out" if hamas doesn't release all the remaining hostages by saturday. at 12 o'clock, and saturday at 12 o'clock, and after that, it will be a saturday at 12 o'clock, and afterthat, it saturday at 12 o'clock, and after that, it will be a after that, it will be a different orgasm. —— ball game. different —— ball game. president trump signs an order to impose tariffs on all steel and on all steel and aluminium imports. aluminium imports. and scientists are closely and scientists are closely

watching a large asteroid that watching a large asteroid that could hit earth in 2032.